New license - please comment

[Mark Rafn]

Indeed, 2a and 2e are in the LGPL, but that doesn't make them acceptible 
in themselves.  LGPL section 3 allows distribution under the GPL, and even 
says "This option is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of the 
Library into a program that is not a library."

If you include such a section, I withdraw any objection.

On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Christophe Dupre wrote:

> For your information, 2a and 2e come directly from the LGPL (2a and 2d in
> it, work for word).
> 2d is a requirement - the original though was to not accept patch
> submission without a signed document giving co-ownership, but that might
> eventually mean keeping track of many individuals and documents.
> We require keeping ownership of all the code, as we have to be able to
> sell commercial licenses. This does mean that we'll sell other people's
> work (with their implicit permission), but that's how we're funding a
> large part of the research we do. Without funding, no more research, no
> more software.

I understand the motivation for 2d, but I do not believe it is compatible 
with an open-source license.  I should not have to give you the right to 
sell my work as a condition of modifying the software.
--
Mark Rafn    dagon at dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>  
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3